Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
AngryWallace

How to fix the CV rework

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[B-B-C]
Beta Tester
13 posts
6,268 battles

Hello everyone

 

First things first: I do not dislike the rework in general. I have played RTS carriers since closed beta and I liked it ... maybe because I was quite good at it.
But I can absolutely see why it is not accessable for all players. And there were other flaws: mainly that your fate as a non CV player in a game was destined by the skill of the CV-players.
The rework addressed this at least to a certain point. I've seen very good CV players lose quite hard - even in ranked.
I also like the more hands on approach with the removal of the top down view.

But I still see a lot of problems with the rework. These are mainly rooted in the uniqueness of the CV class in regards to the other classes.
1. The huge spotting potential
2. The impossibility of evading a CV that wants to strike you consecutively
3. The lack of counterplay in general. I know when I made a mistake against surface ships. Against CVs ... not so much.

Therefore I propose the following changes:

- implement a system with gradually improving AA. The longer the ship is in spotting range of a plane, the Anti Air power goes up every second. There is even ample justification because AA gunners get more used to it, the longer they are actually shooting. The buff stays in that form for a small amount of time, say 45 seconds. That is to coerce the CV to pick a different target. The CV retains their ability to finish of wounded targets, since this normally requires not more than two strikes. It also alleviates the frustration of players who get attacked without pause. Against other classes of ships, there is the opportunity to get unspotted, drive outside their range or hide behind islands. This form of counterplay does not exist against CVs. The system is disabled, when the target is in surface-spotting range of the CV-vessel or if there is only one enemy ship left.

- Spotting delay. Mostly DDs suffer a lot under the permanent spotting from planes. They often die from the spotting and the ensuing damage from non CV ships, rather than from plane attacks. Copy the spotting system from radar, where the radared ship only visible to other players after a short delay. This gives the DD player time to react. Again there is ample justification. It takes longer to relay information from plane to CV and then to other ships.

- Give Defensive AA some of its worth back. its a joke right now. It doesn't have to be an almost 100% drop deterrence like before the update but at least make the drop reticule increase slightly. Give it something to make the CV at least think twice about striking. If been striked through DFA in my Worcester many times ... and not only the first attack.

- Change AP bombs. AP bombs hurt - a lot - especially cruisers. I would propose you remove the ability to do citadel damage and give it strong full pens. That way there is some way to heal at least some of the painful damage. You feel really betrayed when your AA specced cruisers gets citadelled into oblivion through DFA without even the slightest chance of counterplay. Gamemechanic wise the existence of an I kill you button (I know I exaggerate here but still) has never been a good concept.

- In general there should be more power in the torpedo bombers and less in dive bombers. Bombers cause a lot of frustration among players. I believe this has to do with a very human fear of things they can not see or can not assess. Torpedos can be seen when they are in the water and you can tell the exact moment when you get hit. therefore it is also possible to estimate the damage you will take beforehand. You can also move your ship in order to dodge them. You get an immediate reaction to wether you dodged well or not. This does not happen with bombers. You have no idea wether when exactly the damage will hit you and you get no really confirmation wether the damage or the lack thereof has to do with your dodging skills or with bad RNG.

- The fighter consumable is a somewhat bizzare concept. it lacks any justification. Do they just materialize magically? I have thought about a more fitting concept, that also fits game mechanic wise. I am unsure about this. it could be the ability of directing a fighter squad from your CV to guard a certain ship. But they need time to get to the allied ship. This would require some planning.

- Some may say the easiest way to fight carriers is in a blob. The problem I see here: It seriously hampers possibility of attempts to get map control and clever positioning. It instead encourages lemming trains. I know that historically ships would fight in convois to give each other air support. But historically ships wouldnt fight in very confined spaces like archipels. And they had very good communication, years of training and a structure of command. None of this, especially not open waters (expect ocean map of course) exists in WoWs.


Last words. I have seen some unbelievable toxicity in chat towards CV players. This has to stop. On the other hand, I found myself in the situation where I was so frustrated that I was ready to type really mean words towards CVs.

Please make some changes to make the game enjoyable again. They don't have to be my changes. But at least do something.

Regards

AngryWallace
(the name is misleading, I am not angry but frustrated)

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
Players
5,198 posts
10,430 battles
3 minutes ago, AngryWallace said:

- The fighter consumable is a somewhat bizzare concept. it lacks any justification. Do they just materialize magically? I have thought about a more fitting concept, that also fits game mechanic wise. I am unsure about this. it could be the ability of directing a fighter squad from your CV to guard a certain ship. But they need time to get to the allied ship. This would require some planning.

They materialize magically in the same way like enemy ships or even allied ships materialize magically in far distances.

 

They fly at higher altitudes (out of sight) and on command they approach the area

 

3 minutes ago, AngryWallace said:

- Give Defensive AA some of its worth back. its a joke right now. It doesn't have to be an almost 100% drop deterrence like before the update but at least make the drop reticule increase slightly. Give it something to make the CV at least think twice about striking. If been striked through DFA in my Worcester many times ... and not only the first attack.

Planes already start with a spread, not like before. Def AA feels strong to me, when I play Azuma

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B-B-C]
Beta Tester
13 posts
6,268 battles
1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

They materialize magically in the same way like enemy ships or even allied ships materialize magically in far distances.

 

They fly at higher altitudes (out of sight) and on command they approach the area

 

Well enemy or allied ships are still there, even if they are unspotted.

But I see your point about higher altitueds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
Players
5,198 posts
10,430 battles
2 minutes ago, AngryWallace said:

 

Well enemy or allied ships are still there, even if they are unspotted.

But I see your point about higher altitueds

Maybe they 're all the time flying above the strike squads, and we just never see them :cap_haloween:

The returning planes also do the same, they go at higher altitudes, invisible for everyone, only the CV can see them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
3,412 posts

I wonder if WG removed CV - exceeding even your wishes - what you would want nerfed next ?

 

My guess is all enemies being able to do damage to you ?

 

You don't seem te realize planes are the same as an incoming salvo of shells, that come falling from the air too......only defence is kiting, which you can do with aircraft too.........and aircraft actually often do far less damage, and cannot even devastating strike you.

 

 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B-B-C]
Beta Tester
13 posts
6,268 battles
2 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

I wonder if they removed CV - exceeding even your wishes - what you would want nerfed next ?

 

My guess is all enemies being able to do damage to you ?

 

You don't seem te realize planes are the same as an incoming salvo of shells, that come falling from the air too......and actually often do far less damage, and cannot even devastating strike you.

 

I hope I didn't phrase my words in a manner that justifies your response. I never asked for a removal nor for a pure nerf. Give the CV something in return ... like increase torpedo damage.

 

The difference between incoming shells and bombs is quite simple. I can see them. I see them coming. I can angle, I can hide, I can get unspotted. I can estimate the damage they might do. 
I generall don't look up in the sky with a 90° angle. I think nobody does that.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MORIA]
Players
7,309 posts
36,016 battles

The most annoying spotting potential when there are 2 carriers per team. So every flank is scanned . Reducing the amount of carries will solve many issues. They did it in T10 and they can do it on T6 and 8 (T4 has so small impact that... It doesn't matter) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[INTRO]
[INTRO]
Players
1,437 posts
16,775 battles

I'm all for a "No CV button"

 

That way you know what you're geting into.

 

"Wiithout CV" will be a "Battle of Jutland"-style of game with those tacticts and builds. "With CV" will be a "Battle of Midway"-style with more of a "CV vs. CV"-style and more of a "CV-task force" blob-meta.

 

Now, there will come someone and comment "But how about a remove DD-button then?" and I'm fine with that as well. The bottom line is that it's possible to choose and I believe that is good for the game.  I don't mind a bit longer time in the queue is the game is fun.

 

And that's what it's all about: Having fun.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
Players
5,198 posts
10,430 battles
22 minutes ago, AngryWallace said:

 

I hope I didn't phrase my words in a manner that justifies your response. I never asked for a removal nor for a pure nerf. Give the CV something in return ... like increase torpedo damage.

 

The difference between incoming shells and bombs is quite simple. I can see them. I see them coming. I can angle, I can hide, I can get unspotted. I can estimate the damage they might do. 
I generall don't look up in the sky with a 90° angle. I think nobody does that.

They have no torpedo belt, have they? Thus the damage is kinda increased. Also if it would be even higher than that, the CV sniping would start, one CV goes for the other. That would just create a new old problem :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
Players
5,198 posts
10,430 battles
3 minutes ago, Hanse77SWE said:

I'm all for a "No CV button"

 

That way you know what you're geting into.

 

"Wiithout CV" will be a "Battle of Jutland"-style of game with those tacticts and builds. "With CV" will be a "Battle of Midway"-style with more of a "CV vs. CV"-style and more of a "CV-task force" blob-meta.

 

Now, there will come someone and comment "But how about a remove DD-button then?" and I'm fine with that as well. The bottom line is that it's possible to choose and I believe that is good for the game.  I don't mind a bit longer time in the queue is the game is fun.

 

And that's what it's all about: Having fun.

What would be the point of weak and strong AA ships? Only AA strong ship would start the CV matches. Also for what are the skill points of Captains, there would be no point to have to make decisions. It would be always full-aa builds in CV matches and no-aa builds in no-CV matches.

 

If you could choose between DD and no DD, the DD matches would be only with CVs and radar cruisers :D

People could pick their counter matches. But I would assume there is a reason for having good and bad aa. Having advantages and disadvantages

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B-B-C]
Beta Tester
13 posts
6,268 battles

I would really appreciate some feedback regarding the proposed changes. Positive or negative. I can handle both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
3,412 posts

I will translate your post :

 

Dear all,

 

As all could have guessed, i am a cruiser camper sitting idle behind island cover. From safety i melt advancing enemy players, spotted by my teams CV spotter  that are stupid enuff to not camp too like all others shooting over the WOT rock's edge.

 

But now i am hit in my safe cover behind my WOT rock  by :etc_swear: from the sky !! My camping is disturbed !! I dont feel safe anymore !!

 

It is not only that, these :etc_swear: are far too accurate hitting my completely immobile ship. It is rediculous that out of 9 AP bombs a squadron carries, i am hit by 3 of them !!! A full salvo from other ship would never hit with 3 shells !!

 

Dear WG, i dont feel safe anymore as a sitting duck. A am hiding behind a WOT rock, i should be safe !! I demand the right to camp, remove artillery  CV at once !

 

Regards, a sad camper/HE spammer/melter

 

Hint from a CV player :  moving ships that are actively evading are far more difficult to citadel hit.....perfectly immobile sitting duck's....well they are sitting ducks.

 

Btw : AA has the same function as passive dispersion camo, modules and bonusses does to incoming shells, if evading ( player skill ) did not succeed.....it reduces the number of times you are hit so you dont get all 9 AP bombs and explode instantly. It works perfectly well, very similar but less powerfull ( no devastating strike possible ) and is not out of balance in any way.

 

 

 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 4
  • Bad 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B-B-C]
Beta Tester
13 posts
6,268 battles
6 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

I will translate your post :

 

Dear all,

 

As all could have guessed, i am a cruiser camper sitting idle behind island cover. From safety i melt advancing enemy players, spotted by my sides CV  that are stupid enuff to not camp too like all others shooting over the WOT rock's edge.

 

But now i am hit in my safe cover behind my WOT rock  by :etc_swear: from the sky !! My camping is disturbed !! I dont feel safe anymore !!

 

It is not only that, these :etc_swear: are far too accurate hitting my completely immobile ship. It is rediculous that out of 9 AP bombs a squadron carries, i am hit by 3 of them !!! A full salvo from other ship would never hit with 3 shells !!

 

Dear WG, i dont feel safe anymore as a sitting duck. A am hiding behind a WOT rock, i should be safe !! I demand the right to camp, remove artillery  CV at once !

 

Regards, a sad camper/HE spammer/melter

 

Hint from a CV player :  moving ships that are actively evading are far more difficult to citadel hit.....perfectly immobile sitting duck's....well they are sitting ducks.

 

 

 

This post is only attacking me personally. Not a single critique of the proposal.

  • Cool 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
[XTREM]
Players
1,584 posts
13,503 battles
10 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

*Pure garbage*

 

@AngryWallace  Ignore this amoeba and his typically nonsensical drivel. 

 

I don't agree with everything you say in your main post, but I appreciate discussion. 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TF57]
Players
101 posts
10,458 battles
54 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

......and aircraft actually often do far less damage, and cannot even devastating strike you.

 

 

Had that tonite, playing my radar Edinburgh, Tx match doing not to bad, got the jump by some torp bombers, swung the ship hard to stbd and went straight thru the torps, gave myself a good pat on the back for the dodge until I realised I was showing my broadside to a Kreml, bang Dev strike full HP to nowt wish I'd taken the torps now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
3,412 posts
8 minutes ago, AngryWallace said:

This post is only attacking me personally. Not a single critique of the proposal.

 

No i am trying to make you see aircraft are the very same as incoming shells.

 

Yet you don't accept aircraft as they are but you do accept far more devastating shells. Aircraft have far  less devastating power - reducing this any further is rediculous -  but in return they can hit you behind a rock.

 

Cv after many nerfs do exactly the things they should be doing. Marked by their unremarkable  performance in ranked where they were recently introduced. So if thye still bother you, you should consider changing your tactics in game. Not propose CV nerfs.

  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B-B-C]
Beta Tester
13 posts
6,268 battles
5 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

 

No i am trying to make you see aircraft are the very same as incoming shells.

 

Yet you don ot accept aircraft but you do shells.

 

I'd like to differentiate between torpedo bombers and dive bombers. The former have an equivalent in the non CV world. the latter don't.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EST]
[EST]
Players
1,345 posts
25,561 battles
1 hour ago, Beastofwar said:

and aircraft actually often do far less damage, and cannot even devastating strike you.

You sir are so full of BS when it comes to admitting power of CV-s.

devstrike.png.dcb35f844a8fb6f7b28fc4dcdee17a97.png

 

It was not detonation.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOBS3]
Players
1,009 posts
18,655 battles

I can certainly live with:-

1 hour ago, AngryWallace said:

- implement a system with gradually improving AA. The longer the ship is in spotting range of a plane, the Anti Air power goes up every second. There is even ample justification because AA gunners get more used to it, the longer they are actually shooting. The buff stays in that form for a small amount of time, say 45 seconds. That is to coerce the CV to pick a different target. The CV retains their ability to finish of wounded targets, since this normally requires not more than two strikes. It also alleviates the frustration of players who get attacked without pause. Against other classes of ships, there is the opportunity to get unspotted, drive outside their range or hide behind islands. This form of counterplay does not exist against CVs. The system is disabled, when the target is in surface-spotting range of the CV-vessel or if there is only one enemy ship left.

- Spotting delay. Mostly DDs suffer a lot under the permanent spotting from planes. They often die from the spotting and the ensuing damage from non CV ships, rather than from plane attacks. Copy the spotting system from radar, where the radared ship only visible to other players after a short delay. This gives the DD player time to react. Again there is ample justification. It takes longer to relay information from plane to CV and then to other ships.

I don't like:-

2 hours ago, AngryWallace said:

- Give Defensive AA some of its worth back. its a joke right now. It doesn't have to be an almost 100% drop deterrence like before the update but at least make the drop reticule increase slightly. Give it something to make the CV at least think twice about striking. If been striked through DFA in my Worcester many times ... and not only the first attack.

They have brought in the Sector Mechanics and this can be reinforced with DFAA (if your ship does DFAA)

This is fair to all ships as the mechanic is available to all - the DefAA scatter effect was a perk of those particular ships. Still have a perk but less so now, but better mechanism available to all (OK maybe not my Dreadnaught!)

 

2 hours ago, AngryWallace said:

- Change AP bombs. AP bombs hurt - a lot - especially cruisers. I would propose you remove the ability to do citadel damage and give it strong full pens. That way there is some way to heal at least some of the painful damage. You feel really betrayed when your AA specced cruisers gets citadelled into oblivion through DFA without even the slightest chance of counterplay. Gamemechanic wise the existence of an I kill you button (I know I exaggerate here but still) has never been a good concept.

- In general there should be more power in the torpedo bombers and less in dive bombers. Bombers cause a lot of frustration among players. I believe this has to do with a very human fear of things they can not see or can not assess. Torpedos can be seen when they are in the water and you can tell the exact moment when you get hit. therefore it is also possible to estimate the damage you will take beforehand. You can also move your ship in order to dodge them. You get an immediate reaction to wether you dodged well or not. This does not happen with bombers. You have no idea wether when exactly the damage will hit you and you get no really confirmation wether the damage or the lack thereof has to do with your dodging skills or with bad RNG.

Agree with the concept - but this is about balance and differences between nations.

 

2 hours ago, AngryWallace said:

- The fighter consumable is a somewhat bizzare concept. it lacks any justification. Do they just materialize magically? I have thought about a more fitting concept, that also fits game mechanic wise. I am unsure about this. it could be the ability of directing a fighter squad from your CV to guard a certain ship. But they need time to get to the allied ship. This would require some planning.

Concept is bizarre but it is effective for the duration of the ship consumable - the aircraft dropped fighters are ineffective for protection.

 

2 hours ago, AngryWallace said:

Last words. I have seen some unbelievable toxicity in chat towards CV players. This has to stop. On the other hand, I found myself in the situation where I was so frustrated that I was ready to type really mean words towards CVs.

Absolutely agree.

 

Just my initial thoughts on your thoughts.

 

You are right about the spotting - this has to be fixed and my preferred option is that planes can only spot for themselves. The player should be able to Ping the Map to indicate enemy positions! Or give a consumable to "radio back" ship positions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
3,828 posts
15,755 battles
14 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

What would be the point of weak and strong AA ships? Only AA strong ship would start the CV matches

Weak AA ships can still dodge (or hide). Royal Navy destroyers, with their multiple smoke charges, are very good at this. Because of the way continuous AA works CV players are often loath to keep their planes out to wait 60 seconds for you to emerge - they'll either blindfire into the smoke (don't sit still) or go dump their load on something else. 

 

13 hours ago, Cambera_1 said:

I can certainly live with:-

15 hours ago, AngryWallace said:

- implement a system with gradually improving AA. The longer the ship is in spotting range of a plane, the Anti Air power goes up every second. There is even ample justification because AA gunners get more used to it, the longer they are actually shooting. The buff stays in that form for a small amount of time, say 45 seconds. That is to coerce the CV to pick a different target. The CV retains their ability to finish of wounded targets, since this normally requires not more than two strikes. It also alleviates the frustration of players who get attacked without pause. Against other classes of ships, there is the opportunity to get unspotted, drive outside their range or hide behind islands. This form of counterplay does not exist against CVs. The system is disabled, when the target is in surface-spotting range of the CV-vessel or if there is only one enemy ship left.

I think this is possibly the only way of improving the AA deterrent effect for high-tier ships: model the late-war improvements in fire control, airborne radar, etc so that CV strikes have to be swifter and more decisive. Hovering over ships, permaspotting, etc, should be a more hazardous activity than it currently is. 

 

13 hours ago, Cambera_1 said:

They have brought in the Sector Mechanics and this can be reinforced with DFAA (if your ship does DFAA)

Ah, the sector mechanics. It's a shame they didn't explain what they did properly, especially before the Captain re-skill expires. But it's still problematic. They seem to have balanced the whole AA mechanics around the maximum possible AA output (AA modules, Sector Reinforcement, Manual AA skill).... but that's something CA and DD captains aren't going to be able to invest in without a 14 point + captain.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CROTZ]
Beta Tester
1,196 posts
8,163 battles

IMHO the AA rework is good,

a rollback to version 0.8.0 of the game would always be welcome :)

 

Happy weekend everyone!

 

:crab:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
571 posts
11,426 battles
19 hours ago, AngryWallace said:

- implement a system with gradually improving AA. The longer the ship is in spotting range of a plane, the Anti Air power goes up every second. There is even ample justification because AA gunners get more used to it, the longer they are actually shooting. The buff stays in that form for a small amount of time, say 45 seconds. That is to coerce the CV to pick a different target.

For practical purposes, it is gradually improving. Or rather, the results improve gradually. This needs an explanation: The AA damage is directed at a random plane of the squadron, and the targeted plane changes every time AA fires. This means that the squadron usually gathers damage for a while, and then they start dropping like flies.

 

This gives the CV player a short window for also attacking the ships with really strong AA, assuming that they successfully avoid flak, and are willing to take the losses. It's the counterplay of CV's against AA. Now, you could argue that the AA is just not strong enough overall, but I'm not sure I agree with that.

 

My gut feeling as a CV main (since 0.8.0) is that T10 AA is harsh. I avoid Minotaur and Worcester like the plague, no matter if I'm in an Enterprise or a Midway. In fact, most ships in T10 have substantial AA. Below T10 AA is much more manageable. but T8 carriers have smaller reserves of squishier planes. Only the poorly balanced premiums (Enterprise and Kaga, yes you) get outrageous stats in the hands of unicums.

 

Quote

The CV retains their ability to finish of wounded targets, since this normally requires not more than two strikes. It also alleviates the frustration of players who get attacked without pause. Against other classes of ships, there is the opportunity to get unspotted, drive outside their range or hide behind islands. This form of counterplay does not exist against CVs. 

Providing counterplay against CV's is on the TODO list at the WG ivory tower. I imagine this will mean an AA rework with more player control. However, I wouldn't expect anything really drastic, since the keeping AA somehow avoidable for the average CV guy is also important. After all, all they do is sit in the cockpit attacking ships, again and again.

 

Quote

- Spotting delay. Mostly DDs suffer a lot under the permanent spotting from planes. They often die from the spotting and the ensuing damage from non CV ships, rather than from plane attacks. Copy the spotting system from radar, where the radared ship only visible to other players after a short delay. This gives the DD player time to react. Again there is ample justification. It takes longer to relay information from plane to CV and then to other ships.

This I could agree with. Attacking DD's is now pretty hard if the DD player is good, but spotting him is too easy. Also, since the mechanic is already there for radar, possibly it wouldn't feel too out of place?

 

There's a difference though: When somebody fires up the radar there's now a clear notification in the chat. Not only gets the DD reaction time, but so do your team mates with a line of sight. It would be a lot more vague if there was an omnipresent delay whenever a plane enters the detection range of a ship. Also, spotting is one of the key tasks of the CV?

 

Quote

- Give Defensive AA some of its worth back. its a joke right now. It doesn't have to be an almost 100% drop deterrence like before the update but at least make the drop reticule increase slightly. Give it something to make the CV at least think twice about striking. If been striked through DFA in my Worcester many times ... and not only the first attack.

Defensive AA is powerful? 2x for cruisers and 3x for destroyers is no joke. The timing of the consumable is now pretty stupid though: most of the action time is usually wasted since it lasts so long. What I would like to try is something like a wind-up delay, possibly increase the maximum power, and add the possibility to wind it down and save it until later. It would be just one button like now, but with more explicit control. Not sure how WG would feel about it not being a consumable like others.

 

However, as with AA in general, I wouldn't expect anything really major. Keeping the CV gameplay fun is a serious concern for WG. 

 

Quote

- Change AP bombs. AP bombs hurt - a lot - especially cruisers. I would propose you remove the ability to do citadel damage and give it strong full pens. That way there is some way to heal at least some of the painful damage. You feel really betrayed when your AA specced cruisers gets citadelled into oblivion through DFA without even the slightest chance of counterplay. Gamemechanic wise the existence of an I kill you button (I know I exaggerate here but still) has never been a good concept.

They're tricky to use, and one of the charms of the IJN line (and Enterprise). It's a great feeling when you pull it off and land multiple citadels, especially because it's not easy. There's really no "I kill you button", unless there's a huge skill disparity between the CV player and the target. 

 

Possibly they're a bit too devastating? AP bombs are very much in the tool box of CV unicums, and it might make sense lowering their damage a bit. The average player doesn't really hit with them too often, and I think many players just stick to USN and RN CV's to get HE bombs.

 

In general, I feel that many people who propose this and that regarding CV's should play them to get some perspective. They're fun to play. :Smile_Default: Any major rework has to consider both sides carefully, and I think WG has been consistently doing right things after 0.8.0 to fine tune the balance. Lastly, I don't think the balance is now any worse than before rework when we got ten threads a day about radar. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B-B-C]
Beta Tester
13 posts
6,268 battles
3 hours ago, asalonen said:

For practical purposes, it is gradually improving. Or rather, the results improve gradually. This needs an explanation: The AA damage is directed at a random plane of the squadron, and the targeted plane changes every time AA fires. This means that the squadron usually gathers damage for a while, and then they start dropping like flies.

 

 

 

Then maybe the AA mounts should regenerate very slowly over time. That would only be fair since planes "regenerate" too

 

 

3 hours ago, asalonen said:

 

My gut feeling as a CV main (since 0.8.0) is that T10 AA is harsh. I avoid Minotaur and Worcester like the plague, no matter if I'm in an Enterprise or a Midway. In fact, most ships in T10 have substantial AA. Below T10 AA is much more manageable. but T8 carriers have smaller reserves of squishier planes. Only the poorly balanced premiums (Enterprise and Kaga, yes you) get outrageous stats in the hands of unicums.

 

 

Still it has gone down significantly. Worcester or Minotaurs couldnt even be touched before the rework, which was mainly due to the longer AA ranges. They could also provide fleet cover, which is a lot harder to pull off nowadays. 

What bothers me is that Cruisers are supposed to somewhat counter CVs. This role is now gone. Not only is the role of the fleetprotector gone, some cruisers can't even defend themselves anymore. Cruisers who used to have good AA as an asset (like the Moskva), or who could at least defend themselves (Zao, Henry).

 

 

But I very much appreciate your feedback! I really do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
571 posts
11,426 battles
1 hour ago, AngryWallace said:

Still it has gone down significantly. Worcester or Minotaurs couldnt even be touched before the rework, which was mainly due to the longer AA ranges. They could also provide fleet cover, which is a lot harder to pull off nowadays. 

What bothers me is that Cruisers are supposed to somewhat counter CVs. This role is now gone. Not only is the role of the fleetprotector gone, some cruisers can't even defend themselves anymore. Cruisers who used to have good AA as an asset (like the Moskva), or who could at least defend themselves (Zao, Henry).

Once the rework moved some players in plane cockpits, I don't think the game no longer has a place for the kind of murderous AA some cruisers previously had. One of the early fixes after rework significantly nerfed high-tier AA, since "fun and engaging" wasn't really there when you accidentally wandered in the 6.9 km AA range of the Minotaur. With the exception of Minotaur and Worcester, cruisers and battleships are now more or less at the same level, not really able to single-handedly defend themselves, but most are able to provide safety in numbers. 

 

Minotaur and Worcester are still scary enough to provide fleet protection. You can attack them or somebody else in their aura, but it's usually just a dumb thing for a CV to do. You pay such a high price that it's a bad trade. It really has to be an important kill, a critical reset, or you must be running out of options. And in general, I imagine all experienced CV players actively avoid the heaviest AA, although it's always a sum of several factors. If there's a Massachusetts or a North Carolina in sight, no way I will attack them in my T8 CV if I also have a Tirpitz or a Vladivostok in sight, with similar cover from others, presenting the same kind of threat to the team.

 

So AA does make a difference, and I believe the main problem is that players don't feel it's a counterplay since it's so automated.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
3,786 posts
17,291 battles

Agree on the Def AA part .. used to be a tool so even ships with poor AA could at least have a chance to suvive (even if they didn't shoot down any planes).

But that is gone.

Same as the no-fly zones some (full) AA spec'd Cruisers were - they're but a shadow of themselves.

 

AA Cruisers were supposed to somewhat counter CVs (at least the attack planes), but they've lost that role in my opinion as a good CV doesn't seem to care about your AA.

 

Full AA Mino? Enemy Haku does a slingshot/drop/"F", deals 10k-15k damage and loses 1-2 planes. 30-40s later he's back, doing the same thing, i.e. taking a huge steamy dump on your "full AA Cruiser" that was supposed to counter this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×